So, I was sitting around chatting with Baruti Muhammadu D.S. Kamau, Black media entrepreneur and man about town. Reflecting on Obama and growing discontent with him.
Turned out, he and I had the same basic perspective on why some people are disappointed that the “change they can believe in” never manifested.
I’m not disappointed. For one, I never believed in the first place.
I never believed in such change in the first place, my vote was cast elsewhere, according to my conscience, so I’m simply not disappointed.
I am not saying Obama is a bad man. I happen to think that he is simply a fall guy, allowed to reach a position and then finding that what he has on his hands is a lot more than what he expected.
The “tea bagging” contingent are largely exposing their biases. I KNEW some people who went to the “tea bagging” protests and believe me, they were suckers for similar policies under previous administrations.
We are such poor pitiful people, so easily manipulated we are, we go where ever those we trust tell us to.
People miss the fact that he never even specified clearly what change he intended.
People get caught up in the emotion of the historical significance of his election and fail to separate his historical significance with an understanding of his policies, or of the policies of his aids.
Lastly there is a childish mentality to assume that change itself is good. Change in the generic.
Well, all change is not good. There was an utter lack of discernment in a public tired and shell shocked by economic disaster and two wars.
I contend that the Republicans under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. alike vastly abused the public tax purse. In terms of the financial bailout everyone forgets that Bush Sr. inaugurated it, in the last few weeks of his watch, under the same bullshite premises that Obama’s administration picked up – albeit with greater fervor.
Anyone who thinks that the camps of Bush and Obama both were not strategically in accord as to its scale is not thinking with her mind.
Look not at the head in charge, look at his staff. This will tell you volumes. Just as President Wilson was all but controlled by Mandel House (and this is historical fact) a quick look at Presidential advisers can tell you much.
Americans have been conditioned to think, politically, in templates.
Conservatives and liberals both are prone to this vice.
Very few people are capable of extensive analysis, and even those who are, are often caught up in sentiment. It is a human thing, we develop allegiances, loyalties.
It is understandable, and our elites use this tendency to keep our attentions focused on the external, and not the internal.
“Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain..”
I always saw Obama as a tool of certain vested interests who needed a prettier, more diverse, face to fulfill their imperatives. Picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons rubbing his hands
“Smitty ! That G.W. Bush is getting old, best to put someone new who will manifest our agenda…”
[editor: Again, this is not to condemn Obama, in this he fits the same mold as many previous presidents, even JFK. He may or may not have some good ideas, and intentions. What is important to note is that he is constrained by the logic of the system he is in. ]
So Obama and black people.
Obama as a role models? How 19th century. I would rather be a Black Billionaire, than a Black President. Both are signifiers of certain things, one has more influence and ability to exercise power.
In the former you are free, in the latter you are owned. Literally. By an establishment. Why was Obama a more attractive candidate than Cynthia McKinney? Both Blackamores (well, Obama’s a Mulatto, but still). The answer is obvious.
If you become president you are either of the elite, or you are owned by the elite. The probability of any radical change emerging therefrom is remotely small. Such a one will tend to wind up like JFK.
Is Obama either of the elite, or owned by the elite? Well his community organizing non-profit world, Harvard trained self is an outsider to the world of elite interests, ergo he must be a tool.
I am willing to consider alternative perspectives. But this is my view
[editor: Again, some will read this, and get pissed off. Instead why not simply think over carefully what I wrote and try to analyse it. Poke holes in it, mull it over, read a couple of books with alternative perspectives and see how it fits in with yours.]
_EOF
Watched him in the beginning closely to see where this change is being implemented. Concluded he was an idealist at best.
Anyway, to keep it simple as am not brilliant at politics: I was hoping the influence of previous democratic adminstration and expertise would be good for US (and thus sections of world I’m concerned with) economy, as I remember it being reported in quite good condition when they left it.
But I realise it is more complex than that.
Oh, on the side, how did your exams go?
I believe Obama is an idealist at heart. An idealist who became a pragmatist in order to get to his position.
I’ve had many friends and family members who work in social progressive circles, community development circles, and other circles of liberal/left politics. I’ve even a couple family members in Clinton’s administration.
A consistent thing I notice is that these type of people are all very idealistic. They start their careers with idealism seeking to change social ills and redress wrongs, to re-create society along lines that they see as fair and just. They bit by bit are turned into a typical social administrator / social welfare officer / political organizer type of mold.
If you come from outside of a power structure, in order to implement social changes you believe in you have to make certain compromises and seek alliances with blocks of power.
(This is irrespective of whether or not these changes are good in the long term, that’s another debate)
Such blocks of power, in spite of popular opinion, tend to be fairly unified in many ways at their apex. There are factions, slightly differing agendas in details, but overall common interests and consensus tacitly understood.
Interested readers are referred to Carol Quigley “Anglo-American Establishment”.
Quigley was a member of this establishment, though no where near in inner circles, he was a DC / Anglophile WASP insider. He examines the history of the interlocking nature of the Anglo-American Liberal and Conservative wings of politics, at the apex of the political pyramid.
He notes some irony of American far right wingers who do not quite comprehend the interlocking natures of both the liberal and conservative wings of the Wasp establishment of his day.
What’s changed in 60 or so years? Well a bit more ethnic diversity – such as massive inclusion of Jewish elements, in particular among neo-Conservative wings of the Republicans, and some of the further left wings of the Democrats (former New Left types becoming a bit more mainstream) – some Latino/Hispanic inclusion in the Democrats, though with the Cuban community such inclusion in the Republicans. The large Democrat token camp followers in the black community, courting of black clergy, and the lower echelons of the party being filled with urban black workers. And token inclusion of other minorities on the outer wings.
But I contend that the real centers of power in both parties are very similar to the mid 20th century, if anything Wall Street historically has had a dominant role in many Democratic administrations, especially Wilsons, and though few bother to research it, Roosevelt’s
In essence no matter which wing gets in power (labor/conservative, whigg/torries, democrat/republican) idealistic and ideologically consistent activists have to rise through their party structure.
As they do, they become “ironed out” in having to play the game.
They become sort of, eh… homogenous by the time they make it to the top, as a result of having to “play the game” and “make compromises” and so on.
See Tony Blair, idealistic Fabian Socialist (which makes him roughly equivalent to the most Liberal end of the American democratic party) – he gets in power, in many ways, many of the actual policies superficially seem further to the Right than Thatcher.
That’s a superficial analysis, actually, Blair (like Gordon Brown now) career long are pretty typical of your average Fabian. They tend to be pink on the outside, and blue on the inside, snobby Merlot and Salmon socialists, probably bigger snobs than more conservative members of the aristocracy, really.
The welfare state is the equivalent of bread for the masses and circuses to keep them out of the hair of more serious people doing serious work…
Like looting the public chest.
Thatcher, conservative, gets in power and many resent the conservative nature of her policies, but what they fail to realize is how… expansive of government power Thatcher’s governments saw.
Republicans and Democrats at their core are not that different. there are differences, but when it comes to who gets paid at the top, (not the new-rich middling classes who get their first million or two, and certainly not anyone beneath, I mean real players.) such people tend to do well no matter who gets into power. Why?
Look at who donates for campaigns, look at who patronizes one, look at which Foundations bestow endowments and which families and whose wealth establishes these foundations.
Public allegiance is along the lines of the old Roman Red/Blue factions. Those at the top do what they do, those at the bottom are given factions to identify with, those who try to climb to the top in order to work good end up “having to play the game” and are owned by interests they themselves barely understand. Coalitions are made, the public is given a spectacle to witness, the fundamental rules of the game never change.
Ever.
There is factional infighting but at the end of the day, the same people to whom Bush had an allegiance sort of own Obama. Proof, well look at who he bailed out….
Which is why I stopped believing in democracy long ago. It doesn’t really exist in the way most people think it does, and when it does exist it’s not important.
Money, however, is very important.
The game is rigged, I am convinced of this.
And I accept this.
Anyone who wants to argue with me needs to read a couple of books first, one, Quigley’s Anglo-American Elite, two, the Collier Brothers “Votescam”, three ” A. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Wall Street and the Rise of the Bolsheviks, and “:The Best Enemy That Money Can Buy”
Not to sound crass, but any readers out there who think I’m barking up a wall should sit down, and honestly read those books thoroughly, Two of the authors are academics, one is highly recognized, was Bill Clinton’s Mentor, a consummate DC insider who also was an official historian the Council of Foreign Relations (roughly equivalent to the royal Institute for International Affairs you guys have over on your side of the Pond)
I think politics is irrelevant, I think people should focus on trying to make money and being financially independent. Because at the end of the day the only way you can help yourself and those you love is by becoming financially stable. Otherwise you are an owned servant.
Though some servants, I note, have it better off than others 🙂
My exams were brilliant!
Revision was very focused stuff, using my nature: attaching emotional content and interest, cherrypicking the most interesting and the suspect political content and so on for the entertainment and perhaps a little edification of a certain beloved transatlantic correspondent of mine. Who refused to talk to me unless I achieved certain tasks.
I’ve never enjoyed anything as much in my life. Is there such justice if you have so much fun in what should be panicky, pressured studying time and yet do fantastically well?
Particularly floated through my clinical paper, where cared for my patients with confidence and happiness.
Now to reread what you said and look up some bits to comprehend it fully.
ah. The correspondent. utterly adorable.
Read you loud and clear 🙂
How is that little chateau? I lost some interest in it and haven’t visited it a while.
If you haven’t enjoyed anything as much in your life, then this is a sign. A sign that you may be doing what you need to do. Medicine is best looked at as a calling, my father had it, to his disappointment I did not. My destiny lies elsewhere.